Public Bill Committee

[Mr. Jim Hood in the Chair]

Clause 2

Work-related activity: income support claimants and partners of claimants

Amendment proposed (this day): 11, in clause 2, page 6, line 12, leave out in prescribed circumstances.(Mr. Clappison.)

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Jimmy Hood: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following: amendment 91, in clause 2, page 6, line 29, after which, insert
the person is willing to undertake and which.
Amendment 92, in clause 2, page 6, line 30, at end insert
( ) an action plan shall include details of any sanction that can be applied under the Act if the person, without good cause, fails to comply with any of the activities in the action plan..
Amendment 84, in clause 2, page 6, line 31, leave out may and insert shall.
Amendment 85, in clause 2, page 6, line 32, after first the, insert reasonable.
Amendment 86, in clause 2, page 6, line 34, leave out paragraph (a).
Amendment 93, in schedule 1, page 54, line 45, at end insert
An action plan shall include details of any sanction that can be applied under the Act if the person, without good cause, fails to comply with any of the activities in the action plan..

James Clappison: Having had an opportunity to reflect carefully, I find that the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Rochdale are even more defective than I first thought, but I will confine myself to my original intervention. Liberal Democrat amendment 84 is going about things the wrong way round. Instead of saying that regulations may make provision for reconsideration and setting out the circumstances in which that will take place so that everyone knows what those circumstances are and there is clarity, and so that the claimant, in particular, knows what the circumstances are, the amendment would do away with thatand just about do away with paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (5)because it would make it mandatory to have reconsideration. It would merely require that reconsideration shall take place at the reasonable request of the claimant without saying what amounts to reasonable. That seems to be the worst of all worlds.
Paul Rowen (Rochdale) (LD) rose

Jimmy Hood: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot intervene on a Member making an intervention.

James Clappison: I was making a short intervention.

Tony McNulty: I had much of the lunch break to reflect on the matter, and I broadly agree that the Liberal Democrat amendment, although I do not doubt its good intentions, would not achieve anything remotely similar to that described by the hon. Member for Rochdale when he spoke to it. It is perverse and would require mandatory reconsideration. Even if the adviser and the individual were as happy with each other as they could be, there would have to be reconsideration, which does not make much sense. The problem is worse than the hon. Member for Hertsmere suggested because putting in the word reasonable and agreeing to an action plan with all the terms on the side of the individual, and then saying further that any sanctions must already be agreed by the individual would, by accident or design, water down conditionality to the point of perversity and would offer nothing of substance to the Bill.

Paul Rowen: Does the Minister accept that the Government made much in the Green and White Papers about personalised conditionality and a personalised agenda? Does he agree that lack of a legal right for a claimant to have their case reconsidered runs totally contrary to that? The Bill has 86 provisions for which regulations will specify what will be implemented. Does he accept that what might be defined as a reasonable request for reconsideration could be subject to yet more regulations?

Tony McNulty: No. The hon. Gentleman misses the point, and the import of made versus shall. He would condemn everyone to reconsideration whether or not that was requested. We have said collectively until we are blue in the face that this is about rights as well as responsibilities, and about individuals establishing a relationship with their personal adviser that is in their mutual best interests. The direction is not one way, with imposition from the Jobcentre Plus personal adviser, nor is it one way in the other direction. Although it seems that using the word made would be radically different from using shall, I concur with the hon. Member for Hertsmere that that would not achieve what the hon. Member for Rochdale wants. The hon. Member for Rochdale can reconsider the matter and try to come up with something that gets to where he wants to be, but his amendment does not do that.
Given that interplay, I say as gently as possible that amendment 11, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Hertsmere, also would not do that. The amendment would remove the words in prescribed circumstances, but the prescribed circumstances do not refer to the individual, the relationship or anything that we have discussed. They refer to the prescription of those from the wider population of lone parents to whom the circumstances refer. I do not understand what the amendment would achieve.

James Clappison: The purpose of the amendment is not to take out the power to prescribe circumstances, but merely to elicit information from the Government about how they propose to use this power. As such, it is a probing amendment.

Tony McNulty: None the less, the amendment would not achieve what I think the hon. Gentleman wants it to achieve. I accept that the amendment is probing, but the prescribed circumstances refer specifically to individuals, and the thrust of the amendment is to make mandatory on all lone parents, regardless of their circumstances, a conditionality regime to which, as we discussed this morning, we are quite deliberately referring only specific subsets. This is almost Freud gone mad. Anyone with children would be caught, without prescription, under the clause as the hon. Gentleman would amend it, including those with young babies. I do not think that that is what he intends. We had this discussion in our previous sitting and I would ask that amendment 11, probing or otherwise, be withdrawn, and that the Committee gently ignores the others.

James Clappison: I am happy to accede to the Ministers request. I hope that I made it sufficiently clear that amendment 11 was a probing amendment. We are not trying to take this out of the Bill; we wanted either to elicit more information or to speed the process along. With that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Paul Rowen: I beg to move amendment 47, in clause 2, page 7, line 5, after circumstances, insert
including regard to that persons mental health and any specific mental health needs that person may have.

Jimmy Hood: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 50, in schedule 1, page 53, line 30, after failure, insert
including demonstrating that failure was caused by a long-term or fluctuating mental health problem.
Amendment 51, in schedule 1, page 59, line 18, at end insert
and circumstances where it can be demonstrated that a person has left employment voluntarily because of an employers failure to make reasonable adjustments concerning their mental health problems..
Amendment 52, in schedule 1, page 60, line 39, after account, insert
, including that persons mental health and any specific mental health needs that person may have.
Amendment 78, in clause 8, page 14, line 11, at end insert
including regard to that persons mental health and any specific mental health needs that person may have..
Amendment 87, in clause 24, page 34, line 28, after cause, insert
(which shall include situations where the failure was caused by a long-term or fluctuating mental health problem).
New clause 5Entitlement to tailored employment and career support
(1) All new ESA claimants and existing Incapacity Benefit claimants who are migrated to ESA, who have a diagnosed mental health problem which impacts on their ability to undertake work, will be entitled to an assessment carried out by, or linked to, Access to Work to determine what reasonable adjustments may improve the likelihood of retention should they find employment. This assessment must be carried out before the claimant may be compelled to undertake any compulsory work-related activity.
(2) The assessment will include evidence gathering from agencies responsible for a persons employment support and for the provision of health services where appropriate and must include at least one interview with the claimant themselves.
(3) Any reasonable adjustments, recommended by the assessment, will be funded through Access to Work and will be available to any employer wishing to employ the claimant. Available funding for reasonable adjustments will be communicated to employers by a claimants employment adviser and will be transferable to a new employer in the event that the claimant moves jobs or employers.
(4) The assessment will be reviewed regularly and/or when the claimant moves jobs or employers to identify any changes to the adjustments required by the claimant..

Paul Rowen: I wish to speak to amendments 47, 50, 51 and 52, all of which I tabled. They deal with certain categories of people with mental health needs.
Any direction relating to specific work-related activity should take account of a persons mental health and concurrent needs. This relates to our issues with the qualifications of Jobcentre Plus staff and the way in which they will make directions when making decisions regarding work-related activity. Employment advisers should take a persons mental health into account when drawing up action plans or programmes of activity, and amendment 47 has been designed to protect claimants with mental health problems from being asked to undertake an activity that might be harmful to their health.
Amendment 50 relates to schedule 1. Although we had this discussion earlier, it is clear that mental health illnesses fluctuate for many people. It would be wrong if an individuals fluctuating mental health was not treated as a good cause for not attending a work-focused interview. We wish to put protection for people in that position in the Bill. Were such a person to fail to attend an interview, one of the good causes accepted without argument should be that that person has a fluctuating mental health illnesswe think that that is reasonable. We would expect the personal adviser to accept that and thus not to consider applying sanctions.

John Mason: Although I anticipate that the Minister will say that we cannot put anything extra in the Bill to cover issues such as mental health, because there are so many other things that we could put in, does the hon. Gentleman agree that health and mental health issues are really worth underlining in the Bill?

Paul Rowen: I agree. As I said this morning, concerns have been raised about various aspects of the Bill and its overarching scope. It is important to place safeguards in the Bill so that it is clear to both the claimant and the personal adviser what is a just cause. It is reasonable that we should do that.
Amendment 51 would insert a provision about reasonable adjustments into schedule 1. We support the fact that more and more people who were previously consigned to incapacity benefit will be supported back into employment. However, there must be an onus on the employer to take into account that persons needs. There have been circumstances in which someone has returned to work and found that the support that they were promised did not materialise. We believe that it is reasonable for someone not to continue an activity because of an employers failure to provide the support that was promised. That might happen because the employer did not, in all good faith, appreciate what the support might involve. If we are considering people with a fluctuating mental illness, it is difficult to prescribe the support that someone will need, because that will vary over time and due to circumstances. If an employer is not willing to accept that, it might be a reason why a person is unable to continue an activity. We believe that it is reasonable to accept that that can be a reason why a person has had to withdraw from an activity, which is why I tabled amendment 51.
Amendment 52 would insert into schedule 1 the words
including that persons mental health and any specific mental health needs that that person may have.
Again, decisions to access sanctions against the claimant should take account of a persons specific mental health needs. The Bill allows employment advisers to sanction claimants who have failed to comply with their requirements by withdrawing benefits. There needs to be a very specific safeguard to ensure that a person will not be penalised if they fail to comply because of a particular illness. That comes down to the fact that there needs to be an understanding of the fluctuating nature of mental illness and how although, in an ideal world, we can set up one set of circumstances, a person might need a totally different level of support two or three months down the line. We want to get some sort of commitment from the Government that if it is not possible to take account of mental illnesses that may affect someones ability to undertake tasks, there will not necessarily be a sanction and a loss of a benefit. We believe that that is the right way forward.

Mark Harper: I shall speak in support of amendment 78 and new clause 5. Amendment 78 largely covers the same ground as that addressed by the hon. Member for Rochdale. It would insert into clause 8 a provision with regard to someones
mental health and any specific mental health needs.
Clause 8 is titled Power to direct claimant to undertake specific work-related activity. It specifically relates to the reasonableness of directions that may be given by the Secretary of State and says that, when judging whether such a direction is reasonable, the Secretary of State or someone acting on his behalf should take into account the persons mental health or their mental health needs.
We tabled the amendment to probe the extent to which the Governments regulations on work activity will adequately cover someones health requirements. It was also tabled specifically to consider the ability of Jobcentre Plus staff and to determine whether, following the training that they will get, they will have the skills necessary to take into account someones mental health needs themselves, or whether they would refer them to a professional who was able to do so. I should like some clarification on that.
Mind kindly supplied a briefing note in which it suggested new clause 5, which I thought was worth tabling. I do not propose to press it to a Division, but I want to explore Minds ideas about Access to Work. The Minister will know that Access to Work may be used by someone once they get into work, when their employer can have an assessment done to see what help they need. However, under the new clause, prior to getting employment, a new ESA claimant, or an existing incapacity benefit claimant with a mental health problem who had moved to ESA, would be able to get an assessment through Access to Work to determine what reasonable adjustments they might need to improve their ability to get a job and, importantly, to retain it. That assessment would have to be carried out before that claimant was compelled to undertake any compulsory work-related activity. It would be possible to fund any reasonable adjustments recommended in the assessment through Access to Work, and that would give an employer the confidence that the cost attached to taking on a person with adjustments to their working routines, which might affect the way that they were going to employ them, would be funded. That would be a change to the way in which Access to Work works. I want to test the Government, to see whether they think such a proposal is worthy of exploration, and to find out the direction in which they might be going.
Access to Work recently had its budget doubled, which we welcomed. The present Minister for disabled people, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford, and his predecessors have said that Access to Work is one of the Governments best-kept secrets and that they do not want it to be so. New clause 5 might be a way to improve the situation.

Tony McNulty: I would not necessarily include new clause 5 in what I am about to say, but, in essence, we are being asked to provide for things that are already provided for. We already have provisions to ensure that a persons health is always considered, so there is no need for that to be prescribed in the Bill. We say clearly that a persons circumstances have to be taken fully into account, and I am at a loss to know what definition of persons circumstances would preclude a consideration of either physical or mental health.
It is important that the array of conditions is taken into account. However, I caution the hon. Member for Rochdale aboutI hesitate to use the phrase undue specificity againspecifying what he requests in the Bill. People might feel good if they get those words into the Bill, but they would not do the individuals on whom the policy is focused any favours. Allowing the flexibility for a broad range of definitions of peoples circumstances to be put in regulations will afford the greatest possible breadth of definition. I am comfortable with the Bill as it stands, because we want that flexibility in regulation, not least because regulations can be adjusted far more easily than primary legislation. If we went down the road of undue specificity and put too much in the Bill, but later found that we had left something out, we would have to wait for another legislative vehicle before we could alter the primary legislation.
Paul Rowenindicated dissent.

Tony McNulty: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but that is a matter of fact, unless he wants a social security Bill every year, regardless of the circumstances, with all that would mean for what we are trying to do to reform and simplify this area. Things should be as straightforward as possible. There is broad consensus among Committee members about the need for flexibility, but we cannot have flexibility while we are trying to define such things in the Bill.
I accept the comments made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, East about mental illness, and I accept what others have said about having due regard to peoples experiences of domestic violence, or their need to help members of their family, and the barriers that such circumstances might present to work-related activities or any part of the journey. There are, quite deliberately, a host of personal circumstances that can and should be taken into account, but we do future users no favours by over-defining things.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Forest of Dean has recognised that we have doubled the Access to Work moneys. He will know that we are piloting flexibility around Access to Workin London, in the first instance. I agree with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that it is one of our best-kept secrets, but going down the road of new clause 5 would be a tad impractical simply because it would be impossible to determine what reasonable adjustments someone might need until one knew what job they were going to do, so there is almost a circular deficiency to the argument. Do I accept that there should be some greater flexibility regarding Access to Work? Yes, I do, and we will look with interest at what the London pilot comes up with. For such a potentially vulnerable group, we should, in all practical circumstances, do what works. New clause 5 might create extra bureaucracy and add significant costs, so while the idea and sentiment behind it are certainly worth exploring, I would not put it in the Bill. I shall therefore rather tediouslyI might change the record once or twice at a later stageask hon. Members not to press their amendments.

Paul Rowen: In saying that we are trying to over-specify, the Minister has not understood the problem. The Bill gives jobcentre staff huge powers, but does not specify the limits of those powers. We might get regulations that set some limits, but, if experience is anything to go by, much will be left to discretion. The amendments do not seek to prescribe the definition of mental health, a persons circumstances in relation to mental illness, or the circumstances that might involve them having to leave employment. They say merely that those things should be accepted as just causes under the Bill. I make no apologies for tabling such amendments. In our view, recognising such things in the Bill would be a vital protection for vulnerable people.
We are not saying that the amendments would define everythingthey would not. I fully accept that regulations will specify the circumstances under which mental illness will be accepted as a just cause, but it is dangerous not to include such provisions in the Bill.

Tony McNulty: With the greatest respect, the hon. Gentleman is defining things. If he were to put something in the Bill that was separate from regulations, with all that that implies, it would prevail over all other personal circumstances. That is precisely why we need to leave things general and flexible, which would be in the interests of the vulnerable people whom the hon. Gentleman seeks to help.

Paul Rowen: I refer the Minister to amendment 47, which would provide for having regard to a persons mental health. I accept that that regard will come from a health professional. The amendment would not define mental illness in the Bill, but say that that must be taken into account. Regulations can set out the conditions under which a mental health condition would be regarded. I would have thought that reference to advice from a mental health professional should be the way forward.

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman and the Minister are talking at cross purposes. This discussion has been helpful because the Minister has been able to explain to the Committee the direction that will be taken when his officials draft the regulations and he introduces them. To that extent, it has been helpful that the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives have tabled these amendments, because the Minister has been able to explain that mental health will be one of the important factors taken into account in the regulations. We are comfortable that that has been encompassed.
The Minister is right when he says that specifying in the Bill one set of circumstances, but not all of them, would create the danger of putting one ahead of the other, which I would not want. I would not want mental health needs to take precedence over other circumstances that might be equally important, and I think that that is how we square the circle.

Paul Rowen: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and we have tabled amendments that deal with other areas of concern. However, on this issue, it is worth pressing the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Meg Munn: I beg to move amendment 75, in clause 2, page 7, line 5, at end insert
(aa) must be reasonable, having regard to whether the person has a learning disability and the nature of that learning disability;
(ab) must be reasonable, having regard to the adequacy of the support available to be provided to the person if they have a learning disability;.

Jimmy Hood: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 76, in clause 8, page 14, line 15, at end insert ; and
(d) must take into account
(i) any misunderstanding of the requirements to participate owing to the nature of a participants learning disability, and
(ii) the adequacy of support provided to any participant with a learning disability to ensure they understood the requirements placed upon them..

Meg Munn: I am about to make the point that my right hon. Friend the Minister made quite well in relation to undue specificity by raising another area that I think is enormously important. I am doing it because I specifically want to probe that the relevant regulations will take into account the specific needs of people with a learning disability. I would also like to welcome, in some respects, the document, that the Minister has provided for us, on the use of regulation-making powers. Some of the issues that I am raising are set out within that, which is reassuring. I also want to note the helpful exchange which took place at the third sitting of the Committee with the Minister and his officials. I will not, therefore, be going over that ground.
However, I am seeking reassurance that the needs of people with learning disabilities will be properly taken into account when directions are given about work-related activity. Along with their needs, proper consideration should be given to their need for support, whether support is in place, and whether it is adequate to enable them to undertake that work-related activity.
I am very supportive of the concept of personalisation, although not the use of that term. It needs to mean helping people in the way that is most helpful to them. That is complex in regards to people with learning disabilities; it means recognising their capabilities, alongside areas where they need help. In responding to these amendments, can the Minister for the South East, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford give me the reassurance that personal adviser will indeed be properly trained to identify those issues, to make proper assessments and ensure that people with learning disabilities are only directed to work-related activities that are reasonable as far as their own particular circumstances are concerned, and that they get the appropriate support that that individual needs to undertake those activities.

Jonathan R Shaw: I welcome my hon. Friends amendments.
Following on from the previous set of amendments regarding people with a mental health issue, we are now talking about people with a learning disability. It is quite right that this Committee probes and asks questions about particular people for whom we want to ensure that we provide the support. We do not want to be in a position where people are unduly penalised for the wrong reason because someone, in working with them, misses their particular condition or is not particularly sympathetic. I am thus grateful for the opportunity to hopefully provide some words of reassurance to the Committee and to those following our proceedings.
We will set out provisions. There will be a thorough set of provisions in place to protect people with learning disabilities. That will ensure that the claimant understands the requirement of them and it will provide safeguardsif it emerges later that the claimant has misunderstood the requirement. A direction can only be issued as a last resort and must be suitable and achievable for the individual concerned. That is especially important if someone has a learning disability and requires specific support in order to undertake it.
As further reassurance for Members on this point, I have set the safeguards around making sure that the requirements of a person with a learning disability are appropriate. Jobcentre Plus advisers have a thorough training in dealing with customers with a range of diverse health conditions, including learning disability. Advisers working with employment and support allowance claimants are also provided with specialist advice from Department of Work and Pensions doctors, about the kinds of activities that would be appropriate for a person to undertake through the work-focused, health-related assessment.
Advisers working with employment and support allowance claimants are also provided with specialist advice from Department of Work and Pensions doctors, about the kinds of activities that would be appropriate for a person to undertake through the work-focused, health-related assessment. This assessment is completed as part of the medical assessment process at the start of the ESA claim. Every customer has the right to be accompanied to interviews by a carer or an advocate, to help them interpret and understand the advice and requirements being set out to them. It is also an important point that we would expect personal advisers, when assessing someone, to suggest or ask the individual if they wanted to bring along an advocate, a carer or adviser, if the personal adviser thought that individual would benefit in terms of understanding what was required.
As stated in both clauses 2 and 8, any direction to an activity would have to be reasonable, and must have regard for a persons circumstances. Therefore, any activity that is directed by the adviser has to be appropriate to their capabilities and the circumstances in which they find themselves. If, for any reason, the claimant was directed into an activity which was felt to be inappropriate, or where they had not understood the requirements fully, the claimant could ask for the direction to be reconsidered. Again, I can anticipate my hon. Friend thinking well, how would they know that this activity was inappropriate? I refer back to the previous set of amendments which we discussed and say we are piloting these proposals. It is important that we review them and have regard, particularly, for people with learning disabilities, to make sure that they have the support and understand what we are trying to do to assist them.
All members of the Committee will endorse the sentiment I expressed in earlier remarkswe want to see a transformation. There is a pool of talent among people with learning disabilities who want to get a job, and we want to help them. It is reasonable for us to say that we need people to engage with us in order to make that possible. My hon. Friend will know that if someone is on ESA, then they obviously have had an assessment and support, but there are those people on JSA, where perhaps the learning disability will not be so profoundsomeone could miss that particular issue. We will keep that under review but we believe there are safeguards built in.
I do not think, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform has said, that it is appropriate to have such detail on the face of the Bill. We willas he has said and I will sayprovide that in regulations. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley has found the document commissioned by my right hon. Friend helpful. Indeed, we hope all Committee members do. We do not want to stipulate support because, as we say, it is about tailoring to individual needs. I hope I can send a very clear signal about what the Governments intention is, to help these particular people in finding employmentnot having a punitive regime, that actually trips people up, rather than one that assists people to engage with someone. Ultimately, that is what we want. The sanction will be there, but we do not anticipate it being used a great deal. Certainly, from the pilots and the pathways to work programme it was used very infrequently. However, it does provide, in the right circumstances, a carrot-shaped stick in order for some people to engage.

Meg Munn: I thank my hon. Friend for his words. It has been enormously important to get that information on record, so that it is clear what the Governments intention is in relation to people with learning disabilities. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

James Clappison: I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 2, page 7, line 10, leave out subsection (3).
Proposed new section 2F of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 provides that by direction, the Secretary of State may specify what is and what is not to be regarded as work-related activity in any individual case. Can I say at the outset that we welcome a personalised approach, tailoring directions to the individual concerned? We hasten to add that we need to see what this will mean in practice. That is the important question, as far as we are concerned.
However, subsection (3) of the proposed new section, relating to directions about work-related activity, contains a retrospective power for a direction of this naturewhat is and what is not to be regarded as a work-related activity. It is a retrospective power to have effect from a time before the giving of the direction in the case where it varies or revokes a previous direction. I think I am on reasonably firm ground in saying that this is a retrospective power, because the notes on clauses admit that it may be so. Were a retrospective power to be granted, it would be important to pause for a moment.
That is not to say that we are opposing this tooth and nail, or are seeking a Division on it. We would be doing less than our duty of parliamentary scrutiny, though, if we were not to raise the question of a retrospective power, given the general approach toward those powers in the line long of authorities on them, and a possible European dimension on such powers as well.
We do feel that it is important, wherever a retrospective power is granted, to at least ask questions and seek to elicit more information. In this case, what we need to know from the Government is just how this retrospective power would be used. We note that it would be retrospective in an individual case. Under the terms of this power, it would be possible for an individual who had been carrying out what they believed to be work-related activity, to have a later direction made saying that it was not work-related activity after all.
As always in cases of retrospective legislation, there is an individual aspect to it: what individuals knew at the time, what they believed to be the case and subsequent variations, and the question of how fair that is to individuals. I do not want to make too much of that because it is a general point about retrospective legislation. I just feel that we need to give pause for a moment and ask the Government for more information about it.

Tony McNulty: I dislike undue retrospectivity as much as I do undue specificity. I do take the broad thrust of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but if we are to be, as we declared, as flexible as possible, then we need 2F(3) to sit with 2F(1) and 2F(2). There may be occasions where a persons circumstances have changed, and the work-related activity they have been directed to undertake cannot be completedbecause of the illness of a child, for example, or because the childcare has fallen through. Without the catch-all of proposed new section 2F(3), there could be an interpretation of the law that such a person should be sanctioned regardless. So, this is positive retrospectivity rather than negative. As a norm, the UK legal system would decry retrospectivity in the law.
Another example would be where, because of a change in circumstances, a person has agreed with their adviser to engage in activity that is not exactly the same as they were directed into, but which nevertheless was acceptable to the adviser as a suitable alternative. Again, without proposed new section 2F(3), the person could be penalised. This amendment would prevent a personal adviser issuing a revised direction to fit the acceptable activity already undertaken.
So by definition, and to keep up with potential changes in someones circumstances, there has to be that degree of retrospectivity. As the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford, has already said, we do not want to sanction or punish people unduly, and we will want to use those powers in the Bill for sanctions as sparingly as possible. The process is much more about the help and support we can afford people rather than rushing to sanctions. Notwithstanding the hon. Gentlemans points about retrospectivity, which I agree with, in this instance it is important to have that catch-all to afford the adviser the degree of flexibility which we all seek.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming

Jimmy Hood: The Minister was reaching the conclusion of his speech.

Tony McNulty: And therefore I ask that the amendment be either withdrawn or, if pressed to a Division, resisted.

James Clappison: As I hope that I have indicated already, this is a probing amendment and I shall seek the Committees leave to withdraw it on the basis that I have drawn some reassurance from the Ministers entirely appropriate remarks. Having heard the Ministers two examples, however, I am not entirely convinced by the aim. In the first example, he said that somebodys ill health might prevent them from carrying out their original direction, but I am not entirely convinced that the aim of doing justice to that person could not be achieved by a simple variation rather than by a revocationvarying the terms of the order, so that the completed part stood but was varied to something more suitable to the persons current health conditions. I am not sure that variation would not be a better way of dealing with it than revocation, when what was directed in the first place would no longer count because it would have been revoked. However, I draw reassurance from the Ministers explanation of the intentionthat, as far as the individual claimant is concerned, the provision is intended to be positive. In the light of his helpful remarks about that positivity and its effect on any subsequent interpretation of the provisions, should it come to that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 2, page 8, line 27, leave out paragraph (a).

Jimmy Hood: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 21, in clause 23, page 33, line 11, leave out paragraph (a).

James Clappison: Again, amendment 13 is a probing amendment, whereby we simply seek clarification of some possible legal issues. The provision concerns contracting out to welfare to work providers and their legal positionwhere the Secretary of State has contracted out functions to an external provider.
Amendment 21 raises the same issues in relation to contracting out in jobseekers cases. Amendment 13 deals with contracting out of work-related activity matters. Broadly, proposed new section 2G of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 will enable the Secretary of State to authorise providers to carry out functions on his behalf, while proposed new subsections (7) and (8) concern the legal position of the Secretary of State and the provider. Proposed new subsection (7) appears to provide that anything done or omitted to be done by an authorised person is to be treated as being done or omitted to be done by the Secretary of State, so it appears that legal liability for what the provider does will rest with the Secretary of State. However, proposed new subsection (8) provides that that does not apply
for the purposes of so much of any contract made between the authorised person and the Secretary of State as relates to the exercise of the function.
We would like some clarification of the provisions implications. For example, is it the Governments intention that the Secretary of State can, by contractual terms, exclude himself from liability for the actions or omissions of the provider? Can he thus exclude himself from liability under the civil law? We raise that issue to seek clarification from the Government about what proposed new subsection (8) means. Proposed new subsection (7) says one thing but proposed new subsection (8) appears to cater for an entirely different circumstance and to go in the opposite direction. In case there is any question, this is a probing amendment, however. We seek clarification, we think it right to do so when there may be a legal issue and I wait with interest to hear what the Minister has to say.

Tony McNulty: I understand the confusion. The Committee will know that these laws are written in something approximating English, but not quite Englishwe have to allow for appropriate distinctions. The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that proposed new section 2G(7) provides that anything done or omitted to be done by an authorised person, or an employee of that authorised person, is to be treated as if done by the Secretary of State. It is terribly clumsy, but we still have to afford the Secretary of State the right to sue those who contract out for breach of contract, or any other aspect of contract law. The clumsy way of doing that is to say in subsection (7) that all of what can and should be done is actually the Secretary of States duty, and rightly and properly so, save for those contracted out subsequently and passed on to a contractor to do on behalf of the Secretary of State. That is terribly clumsy, but I think the import of them is to have the Secretary of State fully responsible for what are clearly his duties under a raft of previous social security legislation. Where, as in the two instances that the hon. Gentleman has alighted upon, there is a clear contractual obligation on a third partywhere duties have been contracted outthere must still be scope for the Secretary of State, notwithstanding what subsection (7) says about his duties, to afford the proper contractual relationship with that other body in what is the normal contracting practice.
It is saying that here is the sum of the Secretary of States responsibilities and the Bill makes provision for part of that to be contracted out. We must reinvent and rebuild under contractual law the ability of the Secretary of State and the Government to sue or challenge, at the very least, the outside contractor for those elements that have been contracted out subsequently. Even the explanation is clumsy, which I understand, but the interplay between subsections (7) and (8) is important.

James Clappison: The Minister is doing a good job of giving an explanation of this. I invite his attention and, perhaps appropriately, his reflection, because it raises legal issues, on another aspect of this. That is the possible liability of the external provider to a claimant where the external provider may have been negligent in discharging his duties to the claimant. Would this serve to exclude the Secretary of State from liability for the same negligence where the external provider had been negligent to the claimant? While the claimant may have an action against the external provider, issues could arise if the external provider, through any circumstances, came to be in a position to be unable to meet any claim that was brought against him by the claimant. In those circumstances, would the claimant have a right of action against the Secretary of State, or does this serve to exclude it?

Tony McNulty: Just to add to the confusion, I am told by this magical process that enlightens Ministers every now and then that the claimant, even in those circumstances, would sue the Secretary of State, who, because of the interplay between subsections (7) and (8), could then go on to sue the provider.
I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has afforded me time to reflect on these matters, but I think that the original position that I presented of subsections (7) and (8) and their interplay being a clumsy way of making sure that the Secretary of State is still afforded appropriate contractual rights under contract law for those bits that have been contracted out. I believe that the circularity still enduresI will get back to the Committee if that is not the casethe duties lie with the Secretary of State. The circumstances described by the hon. Gentleman would mean, I think, that the individual would sue the Secretary of State and if there was any scope to, not least because of the existence of the part we are referring to, that would afford the Secretary of State the ability to sue the provider.

Mark Harper: The Minister has said several times that this is a clumsy way of achieving this particular outcome. Is there a particular reason why it has been done like this, or is there some elegant way of achieving this that has somehow escaped him?

Tony McNulty: In my limited experience of this place, I have rarely found that English law will go for an elegant route when a clumsy route could take precedence.

James Clappison: I am grateful to the Minister for his words. I was not trying to engage in any guessing game. My purpose was to raise a reasonable question for further reflection. The Minister has approached the matter in a reasonable way. I invite him to go away and reflect on it further. I am particularly thinking of the position of the claimant and the rights that they may have when they have suffered from negligence. On the basis that the Minister has said that he will reflect on this, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Entitlement to jobseekers allowance without seeking employment etc

Amendment proposed: 62, in clause 3, page 10, line 17, at end insert
(8) The prescribed description of person under subsection (4)(c) above shall include any person with dependent children who has claimed benefit in the previous 12 months following an incident of domestic violence provided that the claimant is able to produce such evidence as may be required by the Secretary of State to establish that the relationship was caused to permanently break down before the end of that period as a result of domestic violence, as under United Kingdom Immigration Rule 289A..(Paul Rowen.)

The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clauses 4 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Abolition of income support

Paul Rowen: I beg to move amendment 43, in clause 7, page 13, line 12, after effect insert,
following the presentation of a report concerning income support; and, such an order may not be made unless a draft of a statutory instrument containing the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament..
Clause 7 deals with the abolition of income support and is part of the Governments long-term commitment to simplifying benefits. The clause grants the Secretary of State the power to abolish income support. In moving amendment 43, I am seeking to require him to present both a statutory instrument and report regulations that can be fully debated by both Houses before such a decision is taken. The question is why I am making such a request. As hon. Members are aware, income support as it currently stands is still available. It is a remaining benefit for carers, lone parents and women in the later stages of pregnancy. It is not subject to labour market conditions.
The Government have previously confirmed that carers will be entitled to continue to claim income support until there is a clear and detailed plan for the long-term reform of the benefits available to carers. We seek to probe the Governments intentions for this clause, as we should not grant a wide-ranging power to abolish income support without first having in place a replacement allowance that has been properly debated. Something that pervades the Bill far too much is the granting of sweeping powers to the Secretary of State without any detailed reference to conditionality and without any redress or support for affected groups.
The amendment would mean that before income support was abolisheda power that the clause grants to the Secretary of Statethere should be full discussion and agreement in both Houses of Parliament about the replacement allowance. It would clearly be wrong for ESA, as it is currently constituted, to be the replacement allowance. For example, under ESA, when someone is required to attend a meeting, that meeting cannot be deferred, but can be waived, and that is not a statutory measure.
We need to see the Governments proposals in writing before income support can be abolished. I hope, and believe, that we can all agree a way forward that would provide carers with a better benefit and recognise the tremendous work that they do. Under the Bill, however, there could be a blanket abolition of income support before it had been replaced, and we should afford people the protection of a requirement that Parliament must approve any replacement before the Secretary of State may exercise the power to abolish it.

Tony McNulty: The hon. Gentleman is right, but for the wrong reasons. He is wrong to suggest that the power is sweeping, as it is a single power to abolish a particular benefit, but he is right to say that there are issues to consider, including carers and the timing of such abolition. That is why we have made it clear that we would not introduce an order to abolish that benefit until there were no longer any groups that required it. That seems terribly straightforward; one would not abolish a benefit while people still required it. We have made it very clear that in proposing to abolish income support, we do not propose that people who get it should receive any less money or should be subject to requirements such as that they must look for work. The intention is to simplify and streamline the system without making it any less sensitive to peoples needs, and clause 7 does that appropriately. This measure, and other laws in regulation and statute, will prevail as people move off income support and on to other benefits.
For the same reason, I do not agree that there is any value in requiring a separate report, as the amendment suggests. By the time that such a report was produced, it would be very clear what arrangements had been made for each group of income support recipients, because we would not introduce an order until we were in that position. Also, there will probably be further consultation on at least some groupscertainly on carersas I mentioned earlier. Any report would therefore simply be a formality saying that there were no longer any recipients of income support and that we were going to abolish it. That would be a complete waste of everyones time and would do no more than confirm something that would be apparent from a cursory reading of the relevant order.
The hon. Gentleman can and should be assured that there is no secret agenda to rush towards the abolition of income support without dealing with those extant groups that still require it, and no order will be forthcoming until we are at a stage when there are no recipients of a benefit that we seek to abolish.

Paul Rowen: Is the Minister prepared to give an assurance that the replacement for income support for carers will be debated through consideration of regulations, and that if a new law has to be introduced, there will be an opportunity for proper scrutiny? It is all right saying that there will not be anyone claiming the benefit, but if there will be no opportunity to discuss the replacement benefit, what I am seeking through the amendment should be accepted.

Tony McNulty: In the strictest sense, there will not be a replacement benefit. What we are trying to do for carers in the way that I described earlier is to look radically at the whole approach to supporting them, including with regard to benefits, across the whole of the Government including, crucially, on social care.
I shall not give the hon. Gentleman an assurance about proper scrutiny without his defining what proper means in that context. At the very least, there will be plenty of scope for scrutiny through the Social Security Advisory Commission, at the least through the negative procedure, and potentially through the affirmative procedure. I am sure that there will be other times and opportunities when we will report in more detail for such scrutiny. As has been suggested, the importance of the role of carers in this country is far too important for the situation to be otherwise.

Paul Rowen: I am not totally happy with the Ministers commitment, but we will see what happens. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

Claimants dependent on drugs etc.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mark Harper: I wish to speak about several issues relating to this aspect of the Bill. At the beginning, it is worth saying that my party supports the proposals in the Bill for a treatment allowance. That came out clearly in the evidence sessions, but I say it again for avoidance of doubt because the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform has recently stated the opposite by rather mischievously taking a very short quotation from the former shadow Secretary of State and missing out important words that completely changed the meaning of the sentence.
I am making my remarks by way of ensuring that the proposals are properly questioned. Also, I want them to be successful, but I have some doubts, which are based on feedback about whether they will work from sensible practitioners in this area from whom we did not hear during the evidence sessions.
Claimants who are dependent on drugs are a real problem. The Minister highlighted a real issue, and I know from my own constituents, from people I have spoken to throughout the country and from the clear reaction of members on both sides of the Committee when we were listening to some of the evidence that it is an issue for all Members. For some, it is a problem in their constituencies.
The first thing that is worth discussing is treatment capacity, which came up a great deal during the evidence session. This is one of the areas that I want Ministers to clarify. When the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform was asked about it, we were talking about the number of problem drug users who were on benefits. The number that was floating around was 240,000. A concern was expressed about whether the capacity would be available if a significant number of those people were captured by the proposals and referred to drug treatment services. I think that I am accurately paraphrasing the Minister by saying that he pointed out that, in the initial stages, the focus would be on only heroin and crack users, because that was where the biggest problem was, so the whole drug problem would not be tackled.
However, if we consider the numbers concerned, there are approximately 330,000 problem drug users in Englandthey are the heroin or crack addicts. Two thirds of them are on benefits, but only half of those on benefits are accessing drug treatment. It seems that even if the Department focuses on the heroin and crack addicts who the Minister states are the priority, there are 267,000 problem drug users. Even if a relatively small percentage of those were to be dealt with each year, that would represent a significant increase in the number of users accessing drug treatment. I am not convinced that there will be the capacity to provide that treatment. There would be nothing worse than using the powers in the Bill to persuade or cajole benefit claimants to access treatment only to find that that treatment was not available. That would not help anyone at all.
The Minister rubbished it somewhat, but the evidence provided to the Committee by DrugScope about a response that it received from the Department of Health suggested that an increase in drug users referred through this process could be dealt with only by accelerating them in the queue ahead of those who had come to drug treatment voluntarily. The Minister needs to clarify that because that would not be satisfactory. It would not be helpful if those who had come forward for drug treatment of their own volition were moved down the queue so that people who were there because of a threat of sanction could be dealt with. The Minister needs to tackle the question of how many problem drug users he expects this process to deal withthe Department must have made an estimateand what impact that will have on the available treatment services in England. In a moment, I will deal with some examples from Wales, where there are specific issues about the length of time that users have to wait to access treatment services. There was some discussion at the evidence session about the extent to which the Department is engaging with the Scottish and Welsh Assembly Governments to ensure that such services are available.
Another issue is the extent to which Jobcentre Plus advisers are the right people to be involved in this process. That partly concerns their skills and the training that they will have, but it also concerns the nature of the organisations that are best placed to engage with problem drug users.
I have received feedback from Turning Point, which runs a programme in Wales that helps some of these problem drug users to get back into work. The information that they gave to the Governments consultation was that because Jobcentre Plus is a statutory body that handles the day-to-day delivery of benefits, in the minds of claimants, the disclosure of personal information such as the use of problem drugs to a Jobcentre Plus adviser would be implicitly linked to whether or not they got those benefits.
From the experience of Turning Point, a non-statutory body would engage with those users more successfully. For users who were parents, concerns would be linked not only with getting their benefits, but with whether a disclosure of problem drug use might lead to such a thing as their children being removed by social services. It believed that the likelihood of people making a disclosure to an independent adviser would be much greater than that happening to a statutory body responsible for benefit payments. Its experience from its progress2work operations was that its workers were referring people who were not previously known to treatment providers or known to be problem drug users. When the Minister thinks about how this programme will be implemented, it will be worth bearing in mind the extent to which Jobcentre Plus advisers would be engaged in it, or whether a significant proportion of this work could be more effective if it was delivered by a third party.
There are also some concerns about data protection. The clause contains proposals for information sharing between Jobcentre Plus and law enforcement agencies. Although the Bill contains safeguards to protect individuals from criminal liability as a result of the disclosures they make, there are still concerns about how that information is secured and transferred. The Minister will be aware, both from his previous roles and in his current one, about the importance of data security. It would be helpful if he covered some of those issues in his response.
The other matter that we touched on briefly in the evidence-taking session was exactly what the Minister means by treatment. I think that he said during that session that he was clear that the objective of treatment was to get someone off their drug habit, as opposed to just managing it. I ask about that because there are two issues involved. In the national treatment programme, a significant number of peopleabout 50 per cent.appear to be having their drug addiction managed, as opposed to their getting off drugs. That may be a success from a criminal justice perspectiveif they are on a programme where they are receiving a methadone prescription, that may deal with their need to commit crimes to fund that habitbut if they remain addicted to methadone, although that is less problematic than taking heroin, it does not mean that they are in a good, stable situation allowing them to get to get work or remain in work. I should like some understanding of the objective of the treatment that the claimant would be expected to undertake; is the objective to get those people off their drug habit, albeit recognising that that may take some time, or is it simply to manage that habit in the long term?
I have already mentioned the resources issues. We will see if the Minister can outline some of those. I should particularly like to understand what the Department thinks the likely outcome of this part of the Bill will be, including estimates of how many people will be referred to a provider in first few years and how well the programme will work.
Specifically, picking up the issue I mentioned in respect of Wales, I have data from Cardiff, which is effective as of this month, showing that the next person on the waiting list for a methadone prescription from the community addiction unit in the Vale of Glamorgan, for example, has been on the list since March 2008. That person has been waiting nearly a year for drug treatment. More than 500 people are on the waiting list in Cardiff. There is a fast-track system, but at the moment that is only for pregnant women. Conversely, the drug intervention programme has no waiting list, but all prospective clients must have been involved in the criminal justice system. There is clearly a resource issue there. Those involved in the criminal justice system can get treatment immediately, as it right and proper, but those who are not involved in the criminal justice system appear to be waiting for a significant period. Clearly, even if the Minister is comfortable about how this scheme will work in England, there are issues in the devolved parts of the UK that Ministers need to take into account when rolling it out.
I have covered the issues that I wanted to raise. We are supportive of the proposals. I am not challenging the nature of the proposals but I want to ensure that the Minister has thought through the details and the implementation and that they are as successful as we all wish them to be.

Paul Rowen: We have great concerns about this clause, which grants the Secretary of State sweeping powers that will be reinforced by regulation, but does not prescribe the limits of some of those powers. Schedule 3 mentions some of the powers that are granted. In particular, paragraph 5(1) deals with where information may be obtained from. It grants Jobcentre Plus staff with the power to obtain information held by
a police force...the probation service, or...any other such person as may be prescribed.
We do not have in this country a statute of limitations stating what responsibilities and rights people have, but we are granting the Secretary of State sweeping powers to obtain information about someones health and wellbeing. Returning to the point that I made this morning, that seems to run counter to the NHS constitution under which the treatment that someone receives is fundamentally for them to decide and may be offered by the NHS.
Paragraph 2 of schedule 3 refers to a substance-relate assessment and specifies in great detail how that might proceed. Our view is that there is a much better way of doing that and that such detailed regulation is better dealt with in a health Bill rather than a benefits Bill. The two may be related, but I would be more confident if civil servants in the Department of Health specified who might be a suitable person than if a regulation drafted by the Department for Work and Pensions did so.
Insufficient thought seems to have been given to how the provision will work. The Minister said that there will be pilots and that the matter will be prioritised, but what discussion has taken place with colleagues in the Department of Health to decide how it will be implemented? In our view, the worst outcome would be that people who are already on the waiting list for treatment and are not receiving benefits or who are receiving benefits but are not in a targeted group will be moved down the list to accommodate someone whom the Bill determines should receive priority. That is iniquitous, and not the right way of going about the matter. During the evidence sessions, reference was made to voluntary schemes and a proper assessment of them. Why have we not had a proper assessment of what is already working and how it can be extended?
The hon. Member for Forest of Dean mentioned Wales. Services throughout England vary from region to region, and different health authorities have different levels of provision. What guarantee is there and what discussions has the Minister had with the Department of Health to ensure that if a policy is imposed on, for example, the north-west or the south-west, the resources will be available to implement it and that it will work?
We are concerned about this aspect of the Bill, and how it will work in practice, including civil liberties and the amount of information that can be obtained from various sources, but which may not be necessary to enable JCP staff to undertake the job with which they have been charged. It seems to us that that would be better dealt with elsewhere than in the Bill.

John Baron: I would like to raise a few concerns about the clause. On the face of it, the proposal is attractive, because it is not a welcome thought that our taxes and welfare system are subsidising a life of addiction and perhaps even crime. However, serious questions must be asked, and I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean about whether the capacity is in place to support the proposals, and whether such an approach in itself will be ultimately successful.
On capacity, we heard from our evidence sessions that more than 200,000 drug addicts are currently in treatment, and the capacity just about keeps pace with that demand. These figures are easy to bandy around, so I shall ask the Minister to clarify them if not now then later. We also heard, however, that about 100,000 addicts currently draw benefits but are not in treatment. It is difficult to believe that the existing services will cope with such a big increase in demand without a big increase in resources. When the chief executive of DrugScope was questioned, he clearly made the point that it would be extremely difficult for the system to cope with any extra demand without an increase in resources. What estimate has the Minister or his Department made of how many extra drug addicts will require treatment as a result of the proposals? What will be the cost of that extra provision? And, where will the resources come from? I do not see any additional resources tagged on to the Bill. I am sure that the Minister is fully aware that it is all right putting such proposals in place, but that, if we do not create the capacity to deal with the envisaged increase in demand, the proposals will be almost worthless.
On the question of whether the general approach will be successful, all the evidence suggests that addicts will make progress with treatment only once they have resolved in their own mind to do so. Some addicts persist with their habit, despite it costing them their job, health, home or even their partner and their children, and despite the pain that that subsequently causes. The question that we as a Committee must ask ourselves is, are those people seriously going to take advice from, or respond to, a nice lady[Interruption]or gentleman sitting behind a jobcentre desk asking them to go for treatment? I have met many nice people in jobcentre offices, and they can be very tenacious, determined and gritty while being compassionate. However, they have only certain powers of persuasion, and when addicts have caused so much pain to themselves and, perhaps, others, and gone to such lengths to pursue their habit, one must question whether the policy will succeed. Indeed, the chief executive of DrugScope has said:
There is no evidence that using benefit sanctions to compel problem drug users into treatment will be effective. Withdrawing benefits could perversely drive some people further away from the support they need, potentially impacting upon their families and wider communities.
I suggest to the Minister that if people are forced into treatment that proves wholly ineffective, it at best wastes valuable time and resources and, at worst, delays the moment when they finally get serious about giving up or about re-entering work. Perhaps worse than that, such an approach risks diverting scarce and valuable resources from those who are more serious about giving up their habit. What evidence does the Minister have to suggest otherwisethat using benefit sanctions to force addicts into treatment will be effective? And, what measures will he put in place to ensure that resources are not diverted from where they are most needed and from people who genuinely want to give up their habit? I look forward to hearing his responses to those questions.

John Mason: I have a lot of sympathy with a number of concerns that have been mentioned already. I will make a few points.
Do we have clear definitions of some of the terminology used in the Bill? One such term is propensity to misuse. How many people clearly have that propensity? How many do not? How many would be in a grey area? Even the word dependent needs to be defined. Most of us would probably feel that we could tell whether somebody was dependent on drugs or alcohol, but my understanding is that when scientific tests are taken on somebody, all they can tell is whether a drug is present in that persons body, not whether they are a regular user. There may be other ways of doing that.
Can the Minister assure us that he will be working with the Scottish Government, within our national drugs strategy? That has changed in recent years from managing, as has already been mentioned, and just giving people methadone with or without support, and now includes tackling the drug problem that many people have. In Glasgow, and in other parts of Scotland, there is a real drug problem. None of us is running away from that or pretending that that is not the case.
There is an idea that, if savings are made through benefit reductions, those funds can go through back into the Scottish budget to give more support to drug users. This point has already been made but it is worth emphasising: many people on drugs are in need of help more than anything else. Many of them probably greatly regret that they are on drugs, but they need the motivation to come off. If they do not have that motivation, I am not convinced that a lot of sanctions are really going to help. Even if they do want to come off, DrugScope told us that we are talking seven or eight years for somebody to come off heroin, which is a serious length of time.
Finally, what happens to the children in families headed by drug addicts? I asked that question to Barnardos in the earlier Committee meeting and its chief executive seemed somewhat stumped by it. But we are also committed to tackling child poverty. How do we tie these in? If the family income reduces, does that mean that the children suffer? And where, in practical terms, does the family end up? Do they go on to steal? Are they dependent on their grandparents, who, on limited means, help in supporting the kids? Or does it just mean that the kids eat less?

Ann McKechin: It is a pleasure to serve under you this afternoon, Mr. Hood.
I welcome this debate. It is clearly on a very serious issue which affects many of our constituencies, particularly for the three members of the Committee who represent Glasgow seats, where we are all well aware of the damage that it causes. The debate is on the basis that we want to set up a new contract, between applicants on one side and the Government on the other, about where the responsibilities lie. The aim is to provide a more tailored package which adequately deals with the needs of people who suffer from drug misuse. Such people are moved much further away from the job market as a result of their drug misuse, which permanently affects their lifestyle. Against that background, we have decided that it is important that we first of all focus on those who have the most chaotic lifestyles. That is why we will initially target those using heroin and crack cocaine, because that is the group which causes the most harm to themselves, their families and society.
Every year the use of class A drugs costs society £18 billion in health and crime costs alone. Ninety-nine per cent. of that is caused by problem drug use. So it is appropriate that we target this group first, because it is the group with the most propensity to harm. But as a number of Members said this afternoon, it is also important that we carry out this pilot first and then roll out the service in a way that allows our health services to have the appropriate capacity to cope.
There have been record levels of investment in treatment for drug misuse in England, which has led to a large expansion in capacity and dramatic reductions in waiting times. Ninety-three per cent. of drug users are receiving treatment within three weeks of being assessed. The Department of Health and the Department for Work and Pensions have looked closely at likely numbers being referred into treatment from jobcentres, and we do not believe that capacity will be an issue, although we will monitor this very closely. We will have local drug jobcentre co-ordinators funded by the Department of Health and in post by spring this year. We will be keeping an eye on any potential pinch points and drawing those to the attention of the local drugs partnership.
The National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse will be monitoring data on waiting times and the provisions of the Bill will be piloted, so that should problems with implementation occur pilots can be terminated, or the system delayed in rolling out countrywide, until these issues are resolved.
The hon. Member for Forest of Dean mentioned the issue of queue jumping. I can assure him that there is no question of benefit claimants queue jumping into treatment. If, on occasion, more people need a particular type of treatment than there are current places, it would be the job of the local drugs partnership to make decisions on the basis of clinical need, not the route to referral. We are quite clear about that.

John Baron: I was interested to hear the hon. Ladys comments about pinch points. Given the numbers involved and the estimates that came out of the evidence sessions, there could be up to 100,000 extra addicts looking for treatment. What happens if these pinch points do occur? What action will the Government take to resolve the situation? What measures will be in place to ensure that pinch points do not result in long delays?

Ann McKechin: It is important that we work on a local basis, where we can consider the local capacity of drug services in the area. That is why we want the staff of the DWP and the Department of Health to work very closely togetherif the pinch point is in Englandto ensure that, if there is a pinch point, the appropriate steps are taken within jobcentres to make referrals out into the health service. We want to ensure that we do not end up in the position where there would be any significant increase in waiting times for treatment for any person who has come through the jobcentre route or any other clinician route. That is why it is important that there is a degree of local control and management rather than an entirely centralised system. That is why we will be appointing co-ordinators to deal with that.

John Baron: If the hon. Lady cannot answer this question now, then she could perhaps come back later, but it is no good saying that pinch points will be monitored locally and their effect can be minimised. If we are talking about getting anywhere near the figures suggested in the evidence sessions, we are not talking about pinch points; we are talking about, perhaps, an overloading of the system, at least in certain areas. What specific measures will the Government take to ensure that they can cope with that? I am talking about possible additional resources being required here, because we heard in the evidence sessions that existing capacity is only just keeping up with demand, before this extra demandwe thinkcomes into play. What extra resources will the Government commit to this to ensure that this does not become a major issue?

Ann McKechin: The position in England is a very healthy one: the average wait for referrals is three weeks. For those of us in Scotland, we are waiting for up to 52 weeks; we would love to be anywhere close to what there is in England. There has certainly been no lack of commitment by this Government in putting resources into drug treatment here in England.
The hon. Gentleman raises an important question, however; it is the very reason why we are going to pilot this over a two-year period, and why we will report back to Parliament on any successes or problems that may occur. It is also why we have included a sunset clause in these provisionsso that Parliament will have another opportunity to consider the terms of the pilot and whether it has been a success. This gives a degree of reassurance that, as a Government, we will have to meet the demand, but we also have to make sure that we roll out the demand in a way that is manageablenot only on a national scale but also in terms of local health services. We are very keen to ensure that that is the case.

Mark Harper: The Minister said that the pilots in England would run over a two-year period. When the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform was pressed on this in the evidence session, he said it would take that length of time to get the provision of treatment services in Wales and Scotland to a point at which a pilot in those two parts of the United Kingdom was a meaningful prospect.
Mr. McNultyindicated dissent.

Mark Harper: The Minister is shaking his head, but in the third sitting he said that
there has been discussion with both Scotland and Wales. We think that it is right to pilot throughout the UK, rather than just in England.
He then went on to say that
clearly we do not want to pilot in a situation where there are substantial waiting lists for treatment. We need to work with colleagues over the next couple of years to get to a stage at which a pilot in a Welsh or Scottish context will have some meaning and the provision of treatment will be there.[Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 12 February 2009; c. 87, Q155.]
It sounds as though we will be running pilots over the next two years in England. Given what I said about the waiting lists in Wales and what the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and colleagues on both sides have said about the position in Scotland, a significant period of time will probably have to elapse before it is possible to run pilots in Scotland and Wales. That may be sensible, but it would be helpful to know if that is what the Department is currently planning.

Ann McKechin: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. I was about to turn to the issue of the roll-out of this programme in the devolved Administrations.
We are working very closely with the devolved Administration in Wales. We appreciate that they have issues of capacity, and as in England we do not want to burden health services in a way that causes additional stress. We are still hopeful that we will be in a position at some stagenot initially, but at a later stageto introduce the programme in Wales.
We also continue to have discussions with the Scottish Government regarding their proposals. We were initially advised that they had severe problems of capacity. They then raised objections regarding what they say is unethical, but I will come to that later when I deal with the comments made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, East. At the present time, it is clear that they do not have capacity. They do not have an anti-drugs strategy. We do not have a time scale for when they might reduce the waiting times and we do not know what percentage of extra people would be needed to assist. Therefore, we have a problem with that particular point.

John Mason: Is it not the case that the Scottish Government have indicated that they hope to have much improved times within two years?

Ann McKechin: That might well be the case. I understand that the Scottish Government initially promised a 20 per cent. increase in their manifesto. According to their justice budget, their spending is only up 14 per cent. However, if we look at the number more closely, the apparent increase is only 1.9 per cent average in real terms over the next three years. They have also failed to set up the drugs commission, which they promised. There is no target in their strategy for increasing the number of people receiving drug misuse treatment, they have dropped the previous Administrations target of increasing the numbers in treatment by 10 per cent. and there is no target for waiting times. Unfortunately, the story there is not very positive, but we continue to work with the Scottish Government. We are surprised that they now want us to wait until the pilots have been carried out in England because they are not slow to point out that there are always differences with the devolved Administrations, which is the very reason why we want the pilotsso that we can test the provisions against the different provisions and services that are available in Scotland. I hope that they will use the opportunity to reconsider that because it would be very much in the interests of their own constituents.
Let me return to the comments made by the hon. Member for Forest of Dean. He mentioned the issue of the jobcentre staff and the type of training with which they would be engaged. The role of the personal adviser will be to judge whether there are reasonable grounds for believing a person is a problem drug user. We will be issuing guidance to staff on how to assess whether there are such reasonable grounds. We are certainly not expecting them to make any medical judgments; that must be left to specialists and will be dealt with through our contacts with the NHS. Staff will be provided with guidance on how to spot the possible signs and behaviours linked with drug misuse and it will be drawn up in conjunction with the NTA. The new Jobcentre Plus drugs co-ordinators will also have a role in raising awareness among all staff about drug misuse, including the difficulties faced by drug users in dealing with the requirements of the benefit system. Sadly, Jobcentre Plus staff are not unused to dealing with drug misusers, so they already have knowledge of that particular client group, but we want to ensure that they work closely with the Department of Health regarding awareness.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned data protection. Any provisions regarding the sharing of information will be subject to the Human Rights Act 1998 and data protection legislation. He also asked about treatment and what it involves. Treatment will be medically determined by specialists and will be part of the rehabilitation plan, but will not be the only part of it, because we are looking at giving advice on soft skills, debt, housing and skills training, all of which might form part of the rehabilitation package. We will not force people to take invasive treatments, and their consent will be required for such treatments. If methadone is prescribed as a potential treatment for their condition, their consent will be required in relation to the standard conditions of the NHS charter.

Mark Harper: When he gave evidence to the Committee, the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform made it clear that the priority, in the pilots, were heroin and crack cocaine users, of whom approximately 240,000 are on benefits. Does the Department have any idea, from its research and evidence, of the kind of treatment required to get someone to a position where their problem drug use is no longer a barrier to work? The point that I am driving at is one that I alluded to earlier: does the evidence suggest that, for most heroin or crack cocaine users, the barrier to working will be substantially reduced when they use a substitute such as methadone, or do they have to be completely off drugs to work? That is not clear to me, and I wonder whether the Department has a view on that.

Ann McKechin: We appreciate that coming out of drug use can take a long time. Our aim with rehabilitation plans is to stabilise peoples condition so that they are sufficiently able to engage with labour market activity. That might mean that they are still on methadone, or are coming off it gradually, because it can take some time to come off. We will work closely with employers, through local employment partnerships, to find job opportunities and give guaranteed interviews and work placements to people who have gone through that kind of rehabilitation plan, so that there will be an outcome for them at the end of the day. People will not necessarily be totally off drugs when they re-enter the standard JSA regime.
The hon. Member for Rochdale was concerned about sharing information with the police force and probation service. Those details are still being discussed with our colleagues in the Home Office and Ministry of Justice, but the regulations will provide for information sharing that is proportionate to our aims. Many people who suffer from heroin and cocaine use will have been through the criminal justice and prison systems, and might already be in a rehabilitation programme as part of their probation programme. It is important that we have relevant and correct information from the criminal justice system to ensure that we are co-ordinated and are aware of what is happening under both the DWP and criminal justice systems.
Information from the probation service will include details of individuals who are subject to rehabilitation requirements as part of a community sentence. Such people will already be receiving drug treatment, and we will want to ensure that they are included in the programme. Information from the police is likely to include details of people who have tested positive for drug use when arrested, have been charged with offences or have been referred for a required assessment. Information from prisons will include details of people who have recently left prison. The regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, so Parliament will have the opportunity to consider and approve regulations before they are put in place.

Mark Harper: On prisons, may I make a helpful point? This issue came up when I visited the progress2work operation run by Turning Point in Cardiff. Rather than simply have information about people who have recently left prison, it might help if the Department got that information in advance. One thing that has come through very clearly to me is that if there is no arrangement in place for someones housing and work situation as they are leaving prison, but preferably before they leave, and if they go back to where they used to live, they end up associating with the same people and quickly getting back on to drugs. That not only spoils their employment opportunities but, if they have been off drugs in prison, it can lead to their dying or becoming seriously ill. Notwithstanding concerns about information sharing, it would be better to have information from prisons before or as soon as those people leave. That would join them up with this type of programme so that they do not fall through that gap.

Ann McKechin: The hon. Gentleman raises an excellent point. It is important that people coming out of prisonparticularly after a substantial period and if they have already been in a drugs programmedo not start to take the drugs available on the street, or they could be in risk of their lives. It is important that we have a system that manages to catch people so that they do not fall into holes. We need co-ordination between prison and probation services, health services, and housing agencies in terms of debt advice, because one or two issues in that package can mean the difference between someone managing to cope and someone falling through.
In terms of drug treatment, the figures show that 83 per cent. of those in treatment are recorded receiving effective treatment that has a long-term positive impact. In addition, 93 per cent. of those assessed as requiring drug treatment are able to access it within three weeks. That is critical because the scientific evidence is clear that putting people into treatment is the best possible way out of drug misuse.
The hon. Member for Rochdale involved himself in an argument that I found difficult to follow about why, if we put a piece of legislation into a health Bill, it would be different in essencealthough the terminology might be the samefrom one that we put into a Bill on welfare reform. He creates artificial barriers, which we are trying to take down. When someone leaves prison or hospital after taking a drug overdose, they do not necessarily distinguish between a health Bill and a welfare reform Bill; they need help, and that is what the Bill intends to provide. It is not about a punitive regime: it is about a regime that takes people off JSA standard conditions and puts them on to a treatment programme that is far more appropriate for the condition in which they are in. I hope the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, East mentioned the question of working with the Scottish Government. I have said that we are more than happy to work constructively with them. I bring to his attention one scheme on which we could agree. That was mentioned in yesterdays Heraldand it suggests that the Scottish Government have used the example that we are trying to use, but in the criminal justice system; it is called the persistent offenders programme.
A study into the first year of that programme found that serial offending by people involved in shoplifting, housebreaking and prostitution was cut by almost 30 per cent. in four of Glasgows police divisions. The programme staff identify the most prolific offenders, door-knock them and give them the choice of signing up for drugs and alcohol rehabilitation or being targeted by officers. Sergeant Andy Brown of Strathclyde police said:
We then monitor how well people are doing. It is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. Its about getting people at the right timein that wee window when theyre ready to accept help.
One of the applicants on the scheme said:
Within half an hour they had sorted me out with a methadone programme and I got a worker who would come out to see me every week.
I think members of the Committee may be somewhat perplexed that if someone has a continuous criminal record and is a drug misuser, that person has an entitlement to instant treatment. However, if someone has the misfortune of being a drug user but does not have a serial criminal record in Scotland, that person might wait up to 52 weeks for treatment care.

John Robertson: When my hon. Friend next talks with her counterparts north of the border, could they look at the case she has mentioned and see if we can roll it out as another trial in England? It sounds excellent, and in a city like Glasgow we need all the help we can get.

Ann McKechin: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that I am happy to speak to the Scottish Government at any point about this particular scheme. I very much welcome that pragmatic, sensible and caring approach. That is exactly what we are trying to replicate in the welfare reform system.

John Mason: I also read the article as I came down on the train yesterday. I think it highlights this balance between compulsion and encouragement; would the hon. Lady agree? It does seem from the words she read out that there was very much an element of choice and an element of people wanting to go into these things. That is very much the emphasis. I am a wee bit disappointed by her tone; it seems combative with the Scottish Government. Would it be possible, while not throwing away the principles that the UK Government hold, that there might be a willingness to tweak things a bit in order to get on with the Scottish Government?
Finally, does the hon. Lady also agree that the point is made that people have been taken off crimeI am sure we would all agree that this is a good thingbut the danger of cutting benefits for such drug users is that we end up pushing people back into crime?

Ann McKechin: I do not know what the hon. Gentlemans experience of police is in Glasgow, but when you get a knock at the door saying you are going to be targeted or else you will enter the rehabilitation programme, I would say that it is a strong stick, and fairly stark. However, it is clearly one that has worked.
It is only fair that there is another avenue of opportunitynot only when people come out of prison or are facing another charge, but when they present themselves at the Jobcentre Plus office and are clearly having problems with drug misuse. Because it is a contract between citizen and stateno one forces anyone to apply for the benefit, but those who do apply have to take responsibilitieswe try to offer people individual support and a treatment plan that is appropriate to their needs. Actually, scientific evidence shows that this is the best possible way to get people off the drugs, out of a life of crime and into a situation where they can properly support their family and children. If a persons life is so chaotic that they cannot even sign on to a rehabilitation programme, it prompts the question whether they are the appropriate person to look after children. Incidentally, our experience also shows that people who have a chaotic lifestyle are not able to cope with the standard JSA regime, and very often can come off the rails. That is why we want to offer them a better deal.

John Mason: I thank the Minster for generously giving way again. Would she agree with meI am trying not to be too party politicalthat the whole question of where the children stay is incredibly difficult? We do not have a lot of success in GlasgowI stand to be corrected elsewherewith the council putting people into childrens homes or short fostering care and so on. We should be reluctant to take children away from their parents.

Ann McKechin: I entirely agree. That is why we need to encourage people to go on to rehabilitation plans and to take treatment, because it is the best way to help them and their families.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3

Claimants dependent on Drugs etc.

Question proposed, That the schedule be the Third schedule to the Bill.

John Howell: I have one question relating to schedule 3 which the Minister may be able to answer. In schedule 3, paragraph 2, you introduce schedule A1 to the Jobseekers Act 1995. In paragraph 2, you establish a good principle in relation to those benefit claimants who are looking for, or having to go through an assessmentthat this should only be done where there is a reasonable view that they are drug abusers. However, when we come to the first part of thatundertaking the initial questionsit is clear from page 48, paragraph 65 of the regulation book you provided this morning that you are already making a distinction between JSA claimants

Jimmy Hood: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not use the word you. That refers to the Chair.

John Howell: The Minister has already put it down to my youthful membership of the House.
The Minister, in paragraph 165, is already making a distinction between JSA claimants, for whom regulations will require that they answer questions at the discretion of a personal adviser, and ESA claimants, for whom it is mandatory. Would the Minister explain why there is a difference between the two?

Ann McKechin: Obviously, the JSA is assessing whether people are actually ready for work, while the ESA system is assessing how their health condition affects their ability to work. The question was raised as that is specifically a health-related benefit. We could have a case where a recreational drug user presents him or herself for JSAunder the standard JSA conditions that would not necessarily be a health barrier to their actively seeking work. Due to the different criteria used, there has to be an element of discretion in JSA. However, in ESA we have to assess the entire health condition because people may have multiple issuesthey may have mental health issues or physical disabilities as well as the drug usewhich is why we need to look at all of the health conditions that affect them so that we can make an assessment under ESA.

John Howell: I thank the Minister for that explanation. In both the assessment and the questions, the second part of the reason for asking those questions is the same regardless of the benefit a person may be on. That is that
any such dependency or propensity is a factor affecting their prospects of obtaining or remaining in work.
Even where one has a JSA claim, the assessment may be that they are nearer work than an ESA claimant. That element still comes into the assessment and does not justify in my mind the difference between the two.

Ann McKechin: As I said, JSA is not specifically a health-related assessment, whereas ESA is. It is important with ESA that all relevant medical conditions are disclosed, so that a proper assessment can be made by medical advisers. Following that assessment, when decisions are made about who carries out the treatment and whether the person consents to invasive treatment, the same rules would apply.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 3 accordingly agreed to.

Clause 10

Conditions for contributory jobseekers allowance

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Paul Rowen: If I may, I should like to address a few remarks to clauses 10 and 11, both of which deal with the contributory conditions for JSA and ESA. It would save time if I could speak to both.
These clauses amend the existing legislation so that new claimants, who would normally have to have paid, or be treated as having paid, 26 weeks of class 1 national insurance contributions in one of the last two years prior to the claim, could qualify for ESA. In the July 2008 Green Paper, the Government said:
We will retain existing protections that allow disadvantaged groups such as carers and young disabled people to qualify for ESA.
I seek an assurance from the Minister that that still applies. In the impact assessment an assessment was given that there would be approximately 20,000 fewer people claiming ESA and 5,000 fewer people claiming JSA by 2013-14. I should like to ask the Minister what will happen to those people. What will they be claiming instead of the contributions? Do we have a guarantee that they will not be losing income? The Child Poverty Action Group said in its response to the Green Paper:
The proposals on reforming the contribution conditions will reduce the number of claimants who qualify for contributory ESA and JSA. Those who find they no longer qualify will either have reduced income or be reliant on the means-tested element of either benefit.
What estimate has been made of those 25,000 people who may not submit a claim? Has any calculation been done to say what the impact is in terms of their losing income? Does the assurance that was given in the Green Paper about disadvantaged groups still apply?

Jimmy Hood: Minister?

Tony McNulty: It is very kind of you to invite me to speak to the Committee, Mr. Hood, but I was not going to. I have spent the whole day giving assurances and guarantees that are already extant and I am getting fed up with it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

Maternity allowance and carers allowance

Paul Rowen: I beg to move amendment 56, in clause 12, page 16, line 43, leave out subsection (b).
The amendment would remove the adult dependency increase for carers allowance. The proposal in the Bill will allow the removal of adult dependency increases for the state pension from 2010. Existing claimants will continue to receive the adult dependency increase, but that will be phased out from 2010 to 2020. What effect will that have on those affected by the change? The impact assessment says that some carers allowance customers will receive £30.20 per week less in benefit income than they would under existing rules. That is £1,570 per year for 17,400 people currently receiving adult dependency increases. About half of the new claimants would also receive income support or pension credit. The Government say that carers who lose their adult dependency increases in 2020 would potentially see a reduction in their income if they were not receiving IS or pension credit. However, the Government say that they are committed to ensuring that future support will be tailored to meet the needs of individuals.
I know that the Minister may think that he is getting fed up of having to give assurances. When I dealt with a statutory instrument a few weeks ago, I learned that an assurance was given by the Minister during the last welfare reform Bill that those on contributory ESA schemes would not lose out. That ESA scheme was introduced last October, no changes have been made, and those people now have a reduced income. So I believe that it is a fair question to ask: given that there will be a loss of income and that 17,400 people are affected, the Minister should place it on the record, and hopefully act on it and ensure that these people do not lose out.
Mr. McNultyrose

Mark Harper: Sit down, Minister. He did not want to do all those assurances but now he seems keen to do another one.
I do not want to support the amendment. I just have some questions for the Minister; I am not asking for assurances. The justifications for getting rid of the adult dependency increases for carers allowance are not primarily based around saving money, although they do. They are primarily based around recognising the changes to assumptions about family life that were in place when this element was introduced in 1948. Looking at the list of justifications, it is not about saving money. Given that the Government estimate a net annual saving from abolishing adult dependency increases for carers allowance, and taking account of compensating increases in means-tested benefits£3 million in 2010-11, rising to £17 million in 2014-15it would be interesting to know whether they plan to use any of those savings for those who will, as the hon. Member for Rochdale said, lose out.
The Government have acknowledged that some households will lose out. The Departments view is that those on lower incomes will receive additional support in their means-tested benefits, but it is not entirely clear whether the Government expect that to be full compensation, and it does not take account of those who are not on means-tested benefits. It would be interesting to know whether the Department believes that there is any way of compensating them in a different way that would be simple and straightforward, or whether it is just one of those things that to make the system simpler some people must lose out.
My second question concerns the effectiveness of the information that is given to carers about the change. The Government argue that the negative impact of abolishing the adult dependency increases for carers allowance can at least be mitigated by ensuring that adequate information is available in the run-up to the change, and that there is greater awareness of income support and pension credit to ensure that those on lower incomes take advantage of those. It would help if the Minister would tell the Committee what arrangements are in place, or are planned, to ensure that carers who receive carers allowance are given the information and that it is made as easy as possible for those who lose out to receive extra support from income support or pension credit, acknowledging that the complexity of both benefits and the fact that they are means-tested means that a significant number of people who are entitled to them do not claim them.
If the Government put in place a good regime, at least those on lower incomes will be compensated. How many people will lose out and will not be compensated because they are on lower incomes and will receive other means-tested benefits, and what arrangements does the Department have in place, or will it put in place to ensure that people are fully informed about the change?

Tony McNulty: I fully take on board the hon. Gentlemans statement that those who will be directly affected by such changes should have as much information and awareness as possible at the earliest opportunity, and I shall ensure that that happens. If information is already available, I will certainly pass it on.
As the hon. Member for Rochdale said, the change has a 10-year transition period, and the average length of awards is about six years. Although no new awards will be made from April 2010, we will not end existing awards until April 2020. As has been alluded to, some 4 per cent. of the total carers allowance payments to some 17,400 people include an adult dependency increase. As the hon. Gentleman said, about half of carers who receive the increase are no better off because it reduces the income-related benefit payable to them in other ways.
There is a lot to be said for the simplification, and the hon. Gentleman alluded to that in terms of income support and pension credit. Using savings from the change in that regard would pre-empt what we are trying to do with the income taskforce, and all that we are doing for carers, but it would be a useful element to consider. As the hon. Member for Forest of Dean said, allowances for carers were introduced in 1948, and even the densest Members of the HouseI am sure that there are none in the Committeewould agree that family patterns have moved on ever so slightly since then. That is as may be, but the point about taking something away from people without them knowing is a fair one. None the less, simplification for all the individuals concerned and the ability of the poorest to access other benefits outweigh the concerns of a small number of people who potentially, depending on the length of the award, could lose out. In that contextalong with the clearer picture on the ADI for maternity allowancesimplification is a public policy goal to which everyone should agree.

Paul Rowen: I did not hear an assurance from the Minister, so I will press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

External provider social loans

James Clappison: I beg to move amendment 16, in clause 13, page 17, line 38, leave out paragraph (b).

Jimmy Hood: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 55, in clause 13, page 17, line 38, at end insert and
(c) in respect of any sums charged as interest on the loans..

James Clappison: We now come to the subject of the social fund. The clause allows the Secretary of State to make arrangements with external providers to make social loans in place of the present arrangements with the DWP. It is important for the Committee to bear in mind the background to the clause, which lies in the Governments consultation paper that was issued last November and the subsequent Government response to the consultation that was issued this month, which we understand to be the Governments current position on the matter. We welcome the proposals and the interest that the Government express in having advance payments as a way of obviating the need for crisis loans to be made in certain circumstances, which is worth exploring. Ministers will recall an occasion last autumn when the Government were facilitating, by way of a statutory instrument, the transition of lone parents from income support to jobseekers allowance, which left a gap in their provision. To fill that gap, it was suggested that lone parents should take out a crisis loan. We suggested at the time that this was not an entirely satisfactory way of conducting things, and that it should not be beyond the wit of Government to enable a claimant in such a situation to receive an advance payment, rather than having to take out a crisis loan as a result of changes that were being made by the Government. That is worth exploring.
We also noteand this is a very interesting developmentthat the Government propose not to allow external providers to impose any interest charges on those who receive loans from the social fund. That was in the Governments original consultation paper in November, but they said clearly in their response to that consultation that they did not intend to charge interest on social fund loans, including any loan scheme set up by an external provider under arrangements with the Secretary of State, and that nor do they have the legal powers to do so.
Several interesting questions arise from that, not least when, and why, the Government formed that intention, but perhaps for the purposes of this debate, it would be reasonable to draw a veil over that subject. They have set out their positionthey do not intend that the external providers should charge interest to people who are in need and receive social loansand therefore we do not need to take the matter any further.
It might assist the Committee if I indicate now that I will not move amendment 17, which would require the Government to produce a report dealing with a number of matters, including the interest charged on loans, as we now know that interest will not be charged. Also, I will not moving the amendment in light of the fact that the Government have indicated in the consultation paper that they will take powers to allow external providers to make social loans, but that they do not intend to use such powers yet. They will not use their power to give external providers responsibility for providing loans. They are setting out to undertake more consultation to develop the plans further with relevant parties, which is perhaps another reason why a report under amendment 17 would not be necessary. There will be more consultation following that which took place in November on these issues and on replacing crisis loans and the social fund with a single loan.
That brings me to amendment 16, which is still relevant as the Government are proposing to take powersalthough they do not have any intention of using them at presentto enable external organisations to make loans in place of the present arrangements in the DWP. We know that if the powers were to be used, the external organisations would be credit unions and similar organisations. We acknowledged at the outset that they were worthy bodies and far better than many of the alternatives available to people in need.
It is important, however, when we are considering the powers and the possibility of credit unions and similar organisations disbursing the loans, rather than the DWP, to remember that such organisations face expenses, which they normally defray from interest charged. Also, credit unions need to exceed their operating expenses. We would ask the Minister for a little more clarity and detail on this, given that we now know that the credit unions and other organisations will not be able to charge interest. As the Government take their proposals through further consultation, what are their ideas on how external organisations will defray the expenses that they will inevitably face through having to undertake the task of disbursing the loans on behalf of the Government? Will the Minister say whether, at this stageI know that this is all still subject to consultationthe Government have any ideas about how that will be funded?
Another important aspect is the funding of the financial advice and additional services that we apprehend from the consultation paper that the Government still intend to provide. Financial advice is a good thing for needy people who require social loans to provide the everyday items that it is hard for them to pay for out of their benefits or other income, and for people in crisis situations or facing a family or household emergency. It is important for them to receive financial advice and related services, but we would like to know how the Government propose that they should be funded. They have made it clear that the service is additional to what is already provided by the DWP, so we need to know a little bit about it.
We wonder whether part of the Governments thinking is that expenses in respect of the external provider will be paid out of the social fund budget, with the risk being that that would reduce the amount available for lending to social fund borrowerswho are, as the Minister will accept, people in difficult circumstancesor for people borrowing through crisis loans. We need to know whether these provisions will reduce the amount available to such people or whether there will be some other way in which the expenses will be met. We put that to the Minister because we want to know the Governments thinking at this stage.
We understand that, at the moment, the Governments position is fluid in respect of these issues, which are important for many needy people and worthy of exploration. We want to play our part in eliciting from the Government details about exactly how they are approaching them.

Paul Rowen: As the hon. Gentleman said earlier, in respect of an aspect of amendment 55, we have already had an assurance from the Government that interest will not be charged on loans. To save time later on, I shall make some general remarks about clause 13 because it raises important issues.
It is important to look at the time scale that the Government have used after 10 years of inactivity with regard to the social fund. A consultation was launched in December 2008, but people were given less than three weeks to respond to it, which is one third of what the Governments code of practice says should be the norm for any such consultation. Before Christmas, an article in The Guardian suggested that ridiculous interest rates would be charged, but the Government have thankfully squashed that idea. However, we now have a situation in which the Government say that they are going to carry out further consultation.
I respectfully suggest to the Government that, given the complete mess that the policy appears to be in, the most appropriate approach would be to withdraw clause 13 completely, carry out a proper, meaningful consultation, discuss the matter with claimantsthe people who will actually be affected by such changeand then come forward in the future with proposals that will work. It is clear, given what has happened, that the proposals will not work.
Who will be the providers? We know that the private sector has made it clear that
in the current economic climate
I am quoting the KPMG report
they would not wish to fund a model lending to a deep sup-prime sector.
If the Government were to say, We will go to non-governmental organisations, that would have some merit in the long term, but NGOs are saying that although they are pleased to contribute, they have received extremely short notice and they would need longer to talk about it. If the Government are serious about wanting other providers to run the social fund, this matter needs to be set in context with a set of supportswhether financial advice or whether linked to other issuesbefore we make such a change.
There could be merit in that proposal and in introducing external providers, including NGOs and charities, and having them running the social fund, but the proposal, as it stands, is half baked. With respect, it is a classic example of what we heard about earlier: not putting into the Bill provisions that could lead to complications. The Government have not thought out what they are doing or how the proposal is going to work, and the Bill does not include sufficient detail to make a proposal work, should they want to introduce one. It would be far more sensible if the Government withdrew the clause, went back to the drawing board, and introduced a measure when they had a workable proposal.

Kitty Ussher: Good evening, Mr. Hood. As this is the first time that I have risen to make a speech, may I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, even though it is rather late in the day to be doing so? [Interruption.] It is never too late.
Since we have already, in effect, moved on to the clause stand part debate, it might be helpful if I explain what the clause intends to achieve. I absolutely disagree with the hon. Member for Rochdale, who says that we should withdraw itI shall explain why. People who come to the social fund are those whose finances are at their most precarious. They come to us for help, and it would be irresponsible, when we have made the policy decision to provide them with more support, not to take the primary powers that will give us one avenue for doing so, because, as well as requiring an emergency injection of finances immediately, each person may be in a different situation from that of the person before or after them. They may require a path out of debt, and that could include, for example, information about low-cost insurance schemes that their registered social landlord is able to provide; debt advice or debt consolidation services; advocacy for dealing with the various agencies, organisations or private companies that have contributed to their situation; or flexible repayments. They may respond well to a plan that migrates them from repaying a debt to a savings plan that operates either at the same time that they are repaying their debt, or after they have done so. Alternatively, they might be the type of person for whom that would be entirely inappropriate. They could well be the type of person who needs face-to-face support and advice, and a number of issues might need to be considered in the round, including more complicated things such as child support.
The point is that we, as a delivery Department, may not be the people who, for very good reasons, offer all those things as our core services. However, under the Bill, we will be the people who can take a primary power and provide those who have the most precarious finances with the advice and support that they need from the organisations that are best placed to help them. That is why the clause must remain in the Bill.

Paul Rowen: I do not disagree with some of the Ministers points, but I ask her to point out the additional services that she says could be better provided, because proposed new part 8ZA of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 is all about arrangements for external provider social loans, for the transfer of loans, for an annual report on the operation of arrangements, for repayments of external provider social loans, for the power to restrict to social loans, and the supply of information to all lenders making external social loans. The new arrangements that the Minister talks about are not provided for anywhere in the clause. There is not even a provision to introduce regulations, which is the usual catch-all that the DWP introduce. In view of the Ministers limited consultation, would it not be best if the whole clause were withdrawn, and if the Government went back to the drawing board and came up with some arrangementsperhaps in the Lordsthat enabled the provisions that the Minister wants to be introduced properly?

Kitty Ussher: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. Subsections (5) and (6) of proposed new section 140ZA make it quite clear that we have the regulation-making power to do precisely that and to specify through contracts.
Perhaps it would be more profitable if I were to move on to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Hertsmere. I welcome his broad support for what we are trying to do and, indeed, I have seen Conservative party documents stating that it supports credit unions. A letter was even sent to me from an outside organisation explaining that it had been called in to discuss the reform of the social fund with the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and that it was greatly encouraged that he was keen to explore ways of reworking the social fund, perhaps involving partnerships with credit unions. I am delighted that the Conservative party supports usthat is extremely welcome.

John Mason: Does the Minister agree, however, that some credit unions are not keen to be involved in this kind of thing and that some people in fact feel that credit unions in this country have suffered compared with those in other countries, because they are associated too closely with the public sector?

Kitty Ussher: I accept that not every credit union wants to get involved, but if the hon. Gentleman were to look at the consultation responses that we published today, he would see that a large number do. The important thing to make crystal clear is that the Bill does not impose a requirement on credit unions, or any other type of organisation, to provide such loans. We are simply taking the power so that, hypothetically, we could invite expressions of interest and publish draft contracts under which such arrangements could work. The hon. Member for Hertsmere is correct to say that we do not intend to use the power at the moment.
Reference has been made to the need for future consultation, with which we agree. I would like to clarify that there will be two further sets of consultation. As the hon. Gentleman said, the first will simply give more detail about the type of arrangements that may exist if we use the power in the future, while the second will go into far more detail about how we would like to use the social fund to advance our aims of financial inclusion, and perhaps deal with some simplification measures, too. Returning to the point made by the hon. Member for Rochdale, we are today taking the necessary primary powers so that, hopefully, we will not have to return to primary legislation. We will consult on the other powers as soon as we can.
I hope that I can encourage hon. Members not to press amendments 16 and 55 to a Division. Amendment 16 would delete the paragraph enabling us to pay the administrative costs of external providers with whom we enter into a contract. In answer to the question from the hon. Member for Hertsmere, we understand that, in addition to the provision of loans, additional costs will be incurred as a result of such contracts, and we intend to pay them. That is what proposed new section 140ZA(4) sets out. It will not necessarily reduce the amount available elsewhere because, of course, there will be costs for administering such loans anyway. Furthermore, we hope that, as a result of our policy, more people will be migrated off the social fund, which could also free up resources. However, those decisions will be made in the round, across Government, in order best to use taxpayers money to achieve our public policy goals and in the overall public interest. I hope that that answers hon. Members questions.

James Clappison: I am grateful to the Minister for her response. She correctly set out our attitude. Our amendment was probing, as I indicated. We want to ensure that, through legislation, social fund borrowers get a better dealmore financial advice, better services and so onand that the same amount of money is available for them. Those are important considerations.
We do not seek to put up obstacles, and we do not agree with the approach that the hon. Member for Rochdale has put forward, or with his description of this as half baked. If more consultation is needed, more consultation is needed, and we hope that we can play our part in thatwho knows, we might already have played it! We do not know yet, but we might have done so constructively. Furthermore, we might have a contribution to make in the future. However, I agree with the Minister that it is not ridiculous for the Government to take powers for something that they might want to do in the future.
Whether the Government use those powers will depend on the outcome of the consultation and the various issues that I outlined in my opening remarks. We might have more to say about this matter in the future but, for the time being, we are taking a broadly constructive approach. We want social fund borrowers to get a better deal. I am sure that all Committee members share the view that more thinking is to come on this matter. Perhaps some interesting ideas will come forward during our consideration of amendment 66, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington and which I look forward to discussing. However, for our current purposes, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

James Plaskitt: I beg to move amendment 66, in clause 13, page 18, line 40, at end insert
140ZD Individual social fund accounts
(1) The Secretary of State may establish a system of individual social fund accounts for qualifying persons.
(2) The Secretary of State may designate external providers to provide financial advice to holders of individual social fund accounts.
(3) Individual social fund accounts shall be used to provide budgeting loans from the social fund.
(4) An individual social fund account which meets the requirements of the Saving Gateway Accounts Act 2009 may be designated as a Saving Gateway account.
(5) The Secretary of State may prescribe the conditions under which a designated external provider may advance funds to the Secretary of State for the provision of social fund budgeting loans.
(6) A designated external provider may make a qualifying loan to an eligible person from that persons individual social fund account.
(7) The Secretary of State may prescribe conditions under which deductions may be made from an eligible persons relevant benefits for the repayment of the amount of the qualifying loan to the individual social fund account of the eligible person and to recover the allowable costs of the external provider.
(8) The Secretary of State may make regulations
(a) to establish a system of individual social fund accounts and to set out criteria for qualifying persons under subsection (1),
(b) to specify criteria for the designation of external providers under subsection (2),
(c) to prescribe the conditions under subsection (5), and
(d) to prescribe conditions under which deductions may be made from an eligible persons relevant benefits for the repayment of the amount of the qualifying loan under subsection (7)..
The amendment has been trailed, and I will seek to take our debate on the social fund a little further. We know from our previous debates that there is something of a consensus that the social fund needs reform, and the amendment outlines one way in which to take reform further in the Bill.
In essence, there are two problems with budgeting loans, which is the part of the social fund that my amendment would change. The first problem is that this part of the welfare system is, in my view, entirely passive in its relationship with our customers, and the second problem is that it is clearly underfunded.
First, to illustrate the passive nature of the current provisions, at the moment an applicant will approach us on the telephone or come into a Jobcentre Plus office. Their entitlement to a budgeting loan will be considered and, if approved, a payment will be handed out to the customer. That is the end of the benefit systems involvement with that person. There is no discussion with them about the causes of the financial situation that brought them in search of a budgeting loan. We give them no direction on where they might seek further advice to find out more about how to handle their finances, and we offer no help with future budgeting.
The second problem is that the fund is underfunded. The Government have increased the money available in the budgeting fund, which is welcome, and at the moment we have around £500 million circulating around the fundit is paid out and then comes back through deductions from benefit. However, demand in our communities for the type of assistance that the budgeting loan gives is greater even than the £500 million to which the Government have been able to increase the fund in recent years.
In the evidence session on 10 February, Martin Narey said:
The real urgency is to provide avenues of affordable credit for poor people...If something could be done on the availability of the social fund...it could make things dramatically easier for some of our poorest families.[Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 10 February 2009; c. 46, Q58.]
The amendment is an attempt to address that challenge.
I estimate that demand for such financial assistance is about four or five times greater than the budgeting loan fund is able to meet. That means that benefit recipients and low-income families are looking to alternatives to the budgeting loan for credit. Only about 1 per cent. of the population have access to credit unions, which shows how small the credit union movement is in our country. Although, thankfully, the Government are doing a number of things to try to expand it, it is never going to reach the capacity at which it can be a universal alternative.
If no credit union is available, where are people going? They are perhaps going to Provident Financial, in which case they are paying an annual percentage rate of 189 per cent. on their loan, or they might be going to a more recent innovation: a new sort of store that allows people to rent an item and then own it after three years. That is another sort of credit scheme offered by companies, such as BrightHouse, but people would be paying 200 per cent. interest on the loan. People might be going to organisations such as Payday Loans, which is another fairly recent company that has come to the United Kingdom from the United States, I think. It is growing rapidly and charges 1,344 per cent. on the money loaned. If people are not going to any of the legal options, they could be visiting an illegal alternative working in their community: a loan shark whose interest rate we can only guess at, although it is probably in excess of 1,000 per cent. The repayments sometimes come with menaces, too.
Let me put things another way. If today has been a typical day, we, through the DWP, have probably agreed 4,000 budgeting loans worth a total of £2 million to those who received them. We are asking them to pay us back £2 million, with no interest, through deductions from their benefits. Again, if today has been typical, 16,000 people on low incomes or benefits will have taken out another form of non-bank loan, the total of which would have been about £8 million. However, unlike the budgeting loan, under which they would have to pay back £8 million, they will have to pay back £22 million. That shows the significance of the shortfall and explains why we need to look at ways in which to expand and recapitalise the budgeting loan.

John Mason: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that arrangements with no interest are better than paying back huge, horrific amounts of interest. However, does he agree that people on benefits would be better off receiving grants rather than loans?

James Plaskitt: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a grant element in the social fund. Thankfully, the Government have been able to expand the facilities that are available to fund the grant part of the scheme. In our previous debate, we covered the grant elements of the social fund, but I want to expand the budgeting loan part, which sits alongside the grant-giving capability of the social fund. If we are really to address the target that we are about to give ourselves in statute to abolish child poverty over a given time, increasing the supply of affordable credit will be a crucial step in achieving that ultimate objective. When asked, most of the child poverty campaigning organisations say that the key thing that needs to be done to achieve a step change in the process towards abolishing child poverty is to expand affordable credit in our communities. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley, recognises and understands that already. I welcome the fact that, through the Bill, social fund reform is under way and gathering momentum.
As the Under-Secretary said in the evidence session on 12 February, the Bill is
only the beginning of the journey.[Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 12 February 2009; c. 74, Q120.]
By tabling the amendment, I am trying to put wind in her sails and to increase the speed of the journey. I am not trying to put a detailed scheme in placethat would not be rightbut I have set out a framework for a scheme that deals with the two big problems of the existing schemes passivity and lack of funding. I envisage that, instead of how the system works at the moment, the claimantwhen going to Jobcentre Plus in search of helpwould be enrolled into a social fund account. A relationship would then immediately be built with the individual, and we would not just remain passive towards that person. The account would give them access to budgeting loans exactly as they currently existI am not proposing that that be changedbut it would also give them access to free and impartial financial advice, which it is important to have. Pursuing my suggested route for bringing in additional capital from an external provider would give the opportunity for applicants, if appropriate, to take out an affordable loan.
If the additional capitalisation came from the Treasury, for example, we would be simply expanding the budgeting loan resource as it is at the moment. Realistically, however, we will not see another £2 billion or so coming from the Treasury in the foreseeable future. The additional funding that I am seeking might come from another external providerthe clearing banks, for example, might agree to grant it to the Government as a long-term loan, which the Government might at some point eventually repay, allowing the additional funds still to be interest-free. However, we might not get a deal on such terms and the external provider might want money back for giving us the loan, in which case I would expect that the kind of loans that would be granted in that way would carry a rate of interest, but one comparable to those applied to credit union loans.
It is important to stress that the existing interest-free element of loans remains in my amendment, but we would be giving people the opportunity, if the business model worked, which would of course be conditional, to gain access to affordable credit in addition to any budgeting loan scheme. That would have the effect, if the business model worked, of putting the loan sharks out of business and probably also putting many of those other organisations that are charging exorbitant interest rates out of business, which I would welcome. Of course the business case has to be made, which is why my amendment sets out only a framework into which a scheme could be dropped, rather than attempting to design it in any detail. However, it is important that we take the primary powers to enable us to pursue that route and seek the appropriate working business model.
I am simply asking the Minister to go further on the journey of which she spoke. Many vulnerable families desperately need our help. We could put a framework in place and then pursue a business model. That it is what many of the groups that have been speaking to us for many years are urging us to do, and that would make a dramatic difference to the prospects for many low-income families.

Kitty Ussher: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his amendment. He speaks with considerable policy experience and knowledge in this area. In some ways, we could characterise the amendment as ahead of its time, which makes my hon. Friend a visionary for putting it forward. We agree with the spirit of what he is saying but, as I shall explain, I am not sure that it is the appropriate vehicle for addressing his policy proposal.
I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to do more for people whose finances are precarious, as I said earlier. His description of a system that needs to move from being passive to being active is entirely right. A crucial part is providing financial advice and a broader variety of services, whether through external providers or, where we can, ourselves. He talked of saving gateway accountsI do not want to be pedantic by pointing out that that Bill is not yet an Act and has certainly not been implemented. That might be one small way of saying that he is ahead of his time. Certainly, once that measure is enacted, there will be many ways for the Government to promote saving gateway accounts to the type of people who may be applying to us for crisis or budgeting loansindeed, there will be a large overlap in those two cohorts, I am sureby signposting and so on.
Part of my hon. Friends suggestion was to allow for outside capital to come into the social fund. Free money is great; I would be absolutely delighted if anyone externally wanted to capitalise a social fund and give us a pot of cash that we could lend out without charging interest and preferably never have to pay back. At this point I am not convinced that there is a business model that will do that, but if he can come to me with an organisation that will provide that money, I will be delighted to receive it, and if he knows more than I do, I will be happy to hear how that would work.
It is better for us to be able to enter into an agreement with an external organisation as we already propose, because, to be frank, it will be a financial institution and will have greater capital available, perhaps to migrate people from having a debt to being able to save, which is the spirit of what my hon. Friend is proposing. I agree that that is one of the areas in which we are missing a trick at the moment. Our ultimate goal is for people to be able to put enough money away, difficult though that of course is on low incomes, or to have other measures, such as insurance, to avoid the need for a debt in the first place. However, if they do require a debt, we need to be able to support and advise them through that process.
I am asking my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment. However, as a direct result of his tabling the amendment, I will take it upon myself to ensure that the suggestion that he has madethat people with social fund debts or any other affordable credit debt should be encouraged in any way possible by the Government to migrate that into a savings account, current account or saving gateway accountis taken on board in the appropriate cross-Whitehall discussions that are taking place on, for example, a peoples bank. He can rest assured that he has had an effect. I hope that that will be sufficient for him to withdraw the amendment at this stage and enable us to continue discussing this worthwhile policy in the months and years ahead.

James Plaskitt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her reply. She has been quite warm about what I have suggested and agrees with the spirit of it. She has unbundled the proposals in my amendment and I appreciate what she has said about some aspects of it. She may be right that there could be other means of pursuing those ideas and yet achieving exactly the same end that I suggested this amendment could. I hope that other parts of it, which she has not picked up at this point, may nevertheless still be included in the further consultation that I know the Department is undertaking about the future direction of the social fund. If that is possibleI think that she is assenting to thatI beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

Power to restrict availability of social fund loans

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Paul Rowen: I should like to ask the Minister a few questions about the clause, because it provides the Secretary of State with the power, where a social loan external provider exists, to enable existing social fund arrangements not to apply. One of our concerns is that a situation will be created in which, depending on whereabouts people are in the country, there are different arrangements and different provision. The worst situation might be one in which in one part of the country a very generous arrangement was operated by an external provider, but in another part of the country the arrangements were not as generous. In taking on this power, which restricts the type of loan that can be provided to just an external provider loan, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that there is a level playing field and that regardless of where someone is in the country, the same support or same type of loan will be available? It is not clear from what has already been published or from clause 14 how the Department will ensure that. We would have great concerns if we were to see an uneven playing field and certain parts of the country being treated better than others.

Kitty Ussher: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions, which are valid. If we were to enter an arrangement with an external provider, it would be because we thought that would help us to meet our public policy aims more effectively. In a sense, the client in that area might, by definition, have access to a more holistic service than one in an area in which there was no such contract. However, that is better than retaining the current situation, because it would bring an improvement for some people, although we would like everyone to have that improvement. Let me reassure him on the general point that if and when we enter arrangements in certain geographical areas, those arrangements will have broadly the same eligibility, and there will be no attempt to change eligibility for two identical customers who live in different places. This is precisely the type of issue that we will consult on further when we have more detail as to how those contracts might work. The clause is important because it would be unduly complex, and would not help the situation, to run two parallel schemes in the same area, with one being provided centrally and the other being provided by an external provider.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16

Community care grants relating to specified goods or services

James Clappison: I rise to speak to amendment 18, in clause 16, page 21, line 7, at end add
(8) (a) the Secretary of State shall prepare an Annual report on the operation of the arrangements relating to the community care grants and shall include in that report details of the number and value of the community care grants awarded,
(b) a copy of every such report shall be laid before each House of Parliament..
The clause relates to an important, but separate, subject dealing with community grants that are made available to vulnerable people. However, given what we now know from the Governments response to the consultation about their intention that the same amount of funding will be available for those grants, I no longer wish to move the amendment.

Jimmy Hood: The amendment is not moved.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 17 and 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.(Helen Jones.)

Adjourned till Thursday 26 February at Nine oclock.